Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669010 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-20 21:09:19 EST --- Builds fine and rpmlint is completely silent. (But note that it's not sufficient to run rpmlint on the source package; you need to run it on the generated binary packages as well.) As before, you can dispense with BuildRoot, %clean and the first line of %install if you don't intend to target el4 or el5 with the same spec. I'm not sure there's much point in mentioning the Perl module in the Summary: or in the %description. Why not just describe what the package does? Especially in the %description, there's not much point in referring people to the Perl module when we don't even package it. I'm pretty sure that the current License: tag is OK. It's rare to see non-Perl code under that License, but I see no problem with it. I'm not sure what was up with comment #1, since there's no mention of GPLv3 anywhere. We do permit code under the Artistic license as long as it's dual-licensed with something acceptable, and we do continue to list Artistic as one of the licenses in that case. Several documentation files are duplicated between the main and -devel packages. This needs fixing. fap.h looks relatively generic, but I did some searching and didn't find anything else it might conflict with, so it seems OK. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: ae98bee679fd8c5c286796f8382c99781b14b383732de33f781d8e760eebc68f libfap-1.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X summary could use work. X description could use work. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license texts included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libfap-1.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm libfap.so.4()(64bit) libfap = 1.0-1.fc15 libfap(x86-64) = 1.0-1.fc15 = /sbin/ldconfig libfap-devel-1.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm libfap-devel = 1.0-1.fc15 libfap-devel(x86-64) = 1.0-1.fc15 = libfap = 1.0-1.fc15 libfap.so.4()(64bit) * no bundled libraries. * shared libraries installed: ldconfig is called properly. unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X several duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review